Langendoen v Coolangatta Estate Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 210

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Langendoen v Coolangatta Estate Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 210 Hearing dates: 06/11/2012 - 07/11/2012 Decision date: 09 November 2012 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Elkaim SC DCJ - at Wollongong District Court Decision: Verdict for the plaintiff for $168,516.54 Catchwords: Personal injury, intoxication Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 Cases Cited: Amanda's On The Edge Pty Ltd v Dries [2011] NSWCA 358 Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 Clifton & Ors v Lewis [2012] NSWCA 229 Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 Rabay v Bristow [2005] NSWCA 199 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sharon Langendoen (Plaintiff) Coolangatta Estate Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: S Longhurst (Plaintiff) J Turnbull (Defendant) Kells The Lawyers (Plaintiff) McCulloch & Buggy (Defendant) File Number(s): 2011/00321859 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1The plaintiff was born in 1959 in South Wales. She came to Australia in 1966. She has led a generally active life, working, bringing up children and engaging in recreational activities. Unfortunately tragedy has also intervened. Her daughter Kelly committed suicide in 2001 and one of Kelly's children has serious learning difficulties. 2The plaintiff's personal experiences led her to an occupation in which she directed her efforts to the care of disabled children. As at November 2008 she was working at Warilla High School as a "Teacher's Aide Special" assisting with children with a mental illness. 3As part of her occupational eduction the plaintiff attended a Youth Conference at the Coolangatta Estate Winery, owned and run by the defendant. The conference took place on 6 and 7 November 2008. The plaintiff fell off a wall in the early hours of 7 November. She was injured. She blames the defendant for her injuries and seeks damages under the following heads: Non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, past and future domestic care and medical expenses. 4The action is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the "CLA"). Sections 5B, 5D, 5E, and 50 are of particular relevance. 5The plaintiff's injuries were not greatly in dispute although the defendant did challenge the extent of the damages that allegedly flowed from them. The defendant conceded that, as an occupier, it owed the plaintiff a duty of care. It denied that there had been any breach of that duty of care. The main focus of the case however was not on the breach. Primarily the defendant said that the plaintiff's injuries were of her own making, in particular that she was intoxicated to an extent that provided a complete defence to the claim under Section 50(2) of the CLA or at least a substantial reduction for contributory negligence under Section 50(3).